This part of the acquittal on the charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties against the guilty part and E is reversed.

1. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties by police officers E

A. As to the omission of judgment, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the charge of obstruction of performance of official duties against E among the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant charges”), on the ground that the Defendant’s act did not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, which requires legitimate execution of official duties, on the grounds that the Defendant’s act was against the unlawful compulsory disposition of the police officers, which was avoided without any legal basis, by deeming that the female-child group had a dispute with the witness in the traffic accident, and that he/she would have reached that point.

However, according to the records, this part of the facts charged is an act of assaulting a slope E by the defendant, and the defendant asserted the restraint of police officers who judged that the court below was an illegal compulsory disposition and stated two times in addition to the act of supporting the defendant from walking the slope E one time by walking the slope, the defendant's chest was also taken two times before the police officers' above restraint, and the defendant was taken two times in the trial procedure, such as the examination of witness, etc., the fact that there was a defense against the defendant and the prosecutor about whether the defendant was taken two times the chest of the slope E by his head in the trial procedure.

사정이 이러하다면, 원심으로서는 이 부분 공소사실 중 피고인이 머리로 경사 E의 가슴을 2회 들이받은 행위 부분이 피고인이 발로 경사 E의 정강이를 걷어찼다는 공소사실에 이르게 된 경위를 단순히 부연설명하기 위하여 기재된 것에 불과한 것인지, 아니면 이 역시 피고인이 발로 경사 E의 정강이를 걷어찼다는 부분과 별도로 이 부분 공소사실의 범죄행위를 구성하는 것으로 기재된 것인지 명확히 하고, 그럼에도 이...